Sleeping in until 6:00am is suddenly one of my favorite parts of the week

I know a few people will read that headline and ask, "Since when is 6:00am sleeping in?"

And you're right. For most, a 6:00am wake-up time isn't exactly an indulgence.

But I am, and for most of my life have been, an early riser. Not because I've had to do it for work or anything, but mostly because I love getting a head start on the day.

Since I began going to the gym five mornings a week, I've been getting out of bed around 4:45am. I like to make it to Ohio Sports & Fitness just ahead of what I call The 5:30 Crew, which is a small but dedicated contingent of fellow pre-dawn exercisers.

Whenever I have a session with my trainer Kirk, I stay in bed until 5:15, since he and I don't meet up until 6:00am anyway.

But on those two rest days a week, I get lazy and sleep all the way until the big hand on the clock points straight up and the little hand points straight down.

Scandalous!

I could probably stay in bed even longer, but my body is always ready and raring to go by 6:00. Plus I really have to pee by that point, so there's no use fighting it.

Still, I can't tell you how much I enjoy those "sleep-in" days. I always feel like I've earned them after three or four days in a row of early gym-going, then scrambling to come home, shower, change and head to the office for a full day of work.

I should point out that in order to get a decent amount of rest, I'll sometimes ingest a couple of 5mg melatonin gummies the night before. I recently blogged about how I need to have my wife in the room in order to fall asleep, but the gummies have changed that situation drastically.

Now I rarely even notice when she comes to bed, that's how deeply asleep I am.

Interestingly – and don't ask me why I remember the exact date, I just do – I got almost no sleep 28 years ago last night because I was so worried about starting a new job the next day at a company called Self-Funded Plans. That sort of anxiety-induced insomnia used to hit me several times a year.

But these days? Never. My heads hits the pillow, and within a couple of minutes I'm out.

I wake up when it's technically still night time, of course, but there's always those 6:00am sleep-in days to make me feel like I'm living a life of luxury.

When the time comes for grandchildren, fine. Right now? I'm good.

We have five children and zero grandchildren, and I'm absolutely OK with these numbers.

My wife, on the other hand, while not quite chomping at the bit for one of our kids to have offspring of their own, is probably a little more anxious than me for it to happen.

To clarify, I'm sure that if and when we get grandkids, it's going to be great. All of the grandparents I talk to tell me how wonderful it is.

And I believe them.

For the moment, though, I don't need to be anyone's Grandpa.

Or "Grampy," or "Gramps," or "Grandad," or "Grandpap," or even "Granddude," which is apparently gaining in popularity.

I have been "Dad" for many years, and it's still my favorite title. I'm going to stick with it as long as I can (which is presumably the rest of my life).

It has nothing to do with getting or feeling old. I'm nearly 55, which is still middle-aged but creeping inexorably toward senior citizenhood. I'm not fooling anyone anyway.

I just don't feel the same sort of life milestone momentum I used to feel in my 20s and 30s when I got married, bought a house, had kids, progressed in my career, etc.

These days, I'm somewhat more of a go-with-the-flow, take-it-as-it-comes-and-don't-rush-it kind of guy. Or at least much more than I used to be.

It really does feel like the best approach to life, and it only took me a half-century to learn it.

When grandchildren do enter our lives, we will fawn over them and spoil them in the finest Grandma/Grandpa tradition. We will give them things Mom and Dad don't. We will take them on trips and send them presents for no reason and attend every single one of their little league games and school concerts.

I have no doubt Terry and I will be A-1, top-of-the-line grandparents.

But not now. Not quite yet. There's simply no hurry.

For the moment, my focus is going to the gym five days a week so that, when those grandbabies do arrive, I will have the energy to play with them, wrestle with them, take them places, and generally keep up with them.

When it's my time, believe me, I will not be Rocking Chair Grandpa. I'll be Superhero Grandpa.

Or Granddude. I haven't decided on my title yet.

Generational labels: Accurate or useless? Helpful or harmful?

As someone born in 1969, I am considered to be part of Gen X (birth years 1965 through 1980). We're tucked neatly between the larger Baby Boomer and Millennial generations.

Though I'm not sure that really means anything.

When we were younger, we Gen Xers were defined in pop culture and in the media as being cynical, disaffected slackers. We were associated with alt rock, hip hop, punk, grunge and heavy metal music. We were typically seen as "latchkey kids" whose moms worked outside of the home and who were often victims of soaring divorce rates.

None of that was true for me. I'm not a cynical person, I didn't really get into any of those genres of music, and I'm the product of a two-parent household in which my mom only worked outside of the home when I was much older.

Placing someone in a box labeled "Baby Boomer," "Millennial," "the Silent Generation," "Gen X," "Gen Z" or whatever can be fun, but I've never found it to be particularly useful. People are individuals, and while they're affected by the era in which they grow up, they are not defined by it.

Newsweek recently published an article headlined "10 Ways You'll Know Someone is Gen X, According to ChatGPT" in which they used artificial intelligence to come up with a list of tell-tale Gen X characteristics. I measured myself against this list to see if I was in any way a prototypical Gen Xer.

Spoiler alert: The results were mixed but at least somewhat accurate, as I might have suspected.

Here is Newsweek's (or ChatGPT's) list of Gen X descriptives and a quick analysis of how well each describes me:

(1) "Nostalgia for 1980s and 1990s Pop Culture" - This is half-true for me. I have great fondness for all things 80s but little regard for the 90s. As I've mentioned, I was too busy raising kids in the 90s to care what else was going on. So we'll split the difference. Result: Half-yes, half-no. 0.5 points.

(2) "Preference for Analog Media" - My generation is said to have a preference for vinyl, cassettes, CDs, and VHS tapes. Me personally? Good riddance to all of them, I say. Long live digital music. Result: No. 0 points.

(3) "Independent and Self-Reliant Attitude" - This is sort of a yes for me, I guess? I'm not a DIY guy for most things. I'm quick to call in a professional, which I would like to think has saved me a lot of time and trouble over the years while also depleting my bank account. But when it comes to non-home-repair-related activities, yes, I'm pretty self-sufficient. Again, let's split the difference.  Result: Half-yes, half-no. 0.5 points.

(4) "Cynical Sense of Humor" - Yeah, OK, they got me here. My humor was largely shaped by 80s stand-up comedians, who tended to be cynical and sarcastic. Result: Yes. 1 point.

(5) "Fashion Throwbacks" - According to Newsweek, we Gen X types have a fondness for the clothes of our youth and incorporate elements of them into our current wardrobes. Not me, boy. I had enough neon in the late 80s. Result: No. 0 points.

(6) "Language and Communication Style" - To quote Newsweek's ChatGPT-generated article, "They might use phrases like 'whatever,' 'totally,' 'cool,' or 'dude' naturally in conversation. They may also roll their eyes at newer slang like 'lit' or 'yeet.'" Sadly, I can't help but speak like an actual grown-up. Yet I don't roll my eyes at a new generation's slang because I'm not a cranky old person. Result: No. 0 points.

(7) "Technology Adaptation" - Again, they got me. From the article: "While they are tech-savvy, having adapted to the digital age, they may still exhibit a degree of caution or skepticism toward new technology. They might fondly remember the time before smartphones and social media dominated everyday life." Yeah, that's me. I embrace new tech while reserving the right to be skeptical of some of it. Result: Yes. 1 point.

(8) "Media Consumption Habits" - OK, the Newsweek folks and their AI allies are on a roll now. "Gen Xers might still consume traditional media like newspapers, magazines and cable TV. They are likely to enjoy reruns of their favorite old shows or listen to classic rock or '90s playlists on the radio." That would actually be 80s playlists for me, but broadly speaking, they nailed it. Result: Yes. 1 point.

(9) "Work Ethic and Career Outlook" - Gen Xers, they say, value work-life balance, partially in reaction to the burnout often seen among Baby Boomers. We are said to appreciate flexibility. True and true. I have to hand it to them, they're starting to get me. Result: Yes. 1 point.

(10) "Political and Social Awareness" - Newsweek says we "may lean toward centrist or independent viewpoints, often skeptical of extreme ideologies." The magazine adds that Gen Xers "tend to be pragmatic and open-minded." I would like to think that's true of me. Result: Yes. 1 point.

FINAL TOTAL: 6 out of 10 "yes"

The article captured my personality better than I thought it would. But I think my point still stands: We are all unique, and no overarching label will usefully describe a person no matter when they were born.

A lifetime ago, I used to walk home from school to eat lunch and watch game shows

I logged countless episodes of "Card Sharks" growing up.

I am repeatedly reminded of the fact that I grew up in a very different time. I guess anyone above a certain age (say 30) can say the same.

When I was young, for example, game shows were a thing. All the networks had them, and they were particular staples of the daytime TV lineup.

I also attended a neighborhood elementary school where many of the kids walked home for lunch. I think there are still schools that allow this, but it felt far more prevalent when I was growing up.

It was many years before I understood how good I had it. When I arrived home, my mom would have lunch ready for me on a TV tray. It was usually a sandwich and canned fruit.

I would turn on the TV, find a game show to watch, and dig into Mom's delicious repast. The game shows varied over the years, though "Card Sharks" is the one that comes most readily to mind.

I would happily wolf down the food (that 10am elementary school snack never quite satisfied) while playing along with the contestants on TV. I knew exactly when I had to leave to make it back to school before the 1pm afternoon bell.

I was rarely, if ever, late, though I sat in our living room until the last possible minute. I wanted to fully enjoy my mid-day break at home before heading back to good old Mapledale Elementary.

In later years (5th and 6th grades), lunch times were more about playing football or baseball with my classmates. While I still came home to eat, those lunches were suddenly rushed affairs in which the goal was to eat as quickly as possible and dash back to school before the other guys had made it outside for recess.

None of my kids were ever able to come home from school for lunch, and the TV game show lineup of today pales in comparison to what it was in the 1970s and 80s. All of which is OK, but man, what I wouldn't do for a chance at one more baloney sandwich/fruit cocktail lunch and a rousing 30 minutes with host Jim Perry and those random, middle American contestants on "Card Sharks."

It was, as I often say, a simpler time.

What I remember from my daughter Melanie's birth: I only missed an inning and a half of a baseball game on TV

I'm kidding, of course. I mean, we really did have the Cleveland Indians-Boston Red Sox doubleheader on the TV in the labor and delivery room. And Terry was so good at birthing babies by that point (Melanie is/was our fourth) she made the whole thing happen really, really fast.

But it's not like the baseball games are my #1 memory from the day's proceedings.

Melanie's full head of hair and beautiful face when she came out. And the amazing strength Terry showed in bringing this beautiful little girl into the world. Those things are what I remember most.

The Indians were a close second.

Maybe third.

Anyway, Mel turns 24 years old tomorrow, which seems impossible, but the calendar does not lie. I was not, of course, the one who birthed her on September 21, 2000, but I seem to remember Terry's labor that day being just about the easiest among all of our kids.

As was the case with four of our five children, they hooked Terry up to a Pitocin pump to induce contractions, since all of our kids except Chloe had to be coaxed out of the womb (it must have been really comfortable in there). And I know that at some point Terry was experiencing enough pain to make the whole thing less than enjoyable.

But really, relative to the other times I watched her do this, Melanie's birth seemed like such a breeze.

I remember Terry calmly informing the L&D nurses and her doctor (the great Dinkar Rao) that it was time for Mel to make her appearance. And they took Terry seriously and made the necessary preparations because, when it comes to matters like this, veteran moms like my wife know what they're talking about.

I took a lot of pictures of Melanie in the moments after she was born. Like, before they even had a chance to wipe the goo off her and she was still connected to her mother via the umbliical cord.

The child was literally seconds old and all I could think to do was play photographer.

The other thing I remember about Mel's birth was bringing her home and all of us – all six of us – getting sick at the same time. It was a stomach thing, I believe, because our living room was lined with old blankets to catch any misdirected puke.

In time we all recovered, of course, and Melanie turned out to be such a wonderful addition to our family. She's a smart, successful, beautiful young woman, and I'm so proud of her.

For the record, the Indians and Red Sox split that doubleheader. I only wish the Tribe could have won both games in Mel's honor.

BLOG RERUN: There are times I really wish I had the wisdom of Solomon

NOTE: This post originally ran here on the blog on September 18, 2013. I bring it back 11 years later, noting that while I still don't have the wisdom of Solomon, I am thankfully no longer called upon to settle these sorts of kerfuffles among my kids.

When you have multiple children, one of your chief roles as a parent is to serve as mediator for arguments, disputes and disagreements of all kinds.

Most of the time this is a fairly easy job. One child hits another? Punishment is duly meted out to the hitter. Two little ones want the same toy at the same time? You immediately devise a system of sharing while extolling the virtues of compromise. Someone uses someone else's hair straightener without asking? It only takes a few seconds to figure out who's in the wrong.

But then there are times when my children come to me with a problem I simply can't solve.

Case in point: Child A and Child B approach me to resolve the question of who should have control of the living room TV for the next two hours. Child A will argue that she wants to watch a movie and Child B has been playing Xbox on the TV for the past hour.

Which seems pretty clear cut. You take the TV, Child A, because it's rightly your turn. Enjoy your movie.

But not so fast. Child B will counter that his sibling had the TV for two whole hours yesterday, so he still has at least one hour of television control coming to him. Which also seems fair.

And suddenly the jury is deadlocked. Both parties make convincing cases and I have no idea how to rule. It's at this point that I have three options:

(A) Make a judgment call and recognize that one child is going to feel slighted (and perhaps rightly so)

(B) Sit with the two combatants and negotiate a deal

(C) Slowly sneak away and hope that my wife will step in and solve this riddle

More often than not, I choose "C." Which I realize is unfair to my overtaxed wife, but "A" and "B" both involve a level of effort to which I'm not necessarily willing to commit.

I also enjoy it when one of the kids blatantly does something wrong to his/her sibling, then argues that the sibling did the same thing to them yesterday or last week or whenever.

While this may be true, I point out that just because he/she did it to you, it in no way allows you to do it back to them. This is not how our justice system works, yet this concept repeatedly baffles them. My children are the ultimate purveyors of "an eye for an eye."

Then there are the habitual offenders in our house. And here I'm thinking specifically of my 15-year-old son Jared. He constantly teases and torments his little brother Jack. I tell him not to do this, and he stops. But he does it again the next day. I administer some form of discipline, so he stops. Then he does it again soon after.

This goes on and on. Whatever I do to him, whatever I take away from him, it seems to have no long-term effect. Jared is evil, and his evil nature forces its way to the surface whenever he's in the presence of his younger brother.  (2024 UPDATE: Jared has grown into an outstanding young man, it should be noted.)

Which is a shame, really, because in those times when Jared gets along with Jack and does things with him, Jack loves it. Little boys desperately want and need the approval of their older brothers, and I see that in Jack, yet Jared continues his evil ways.

Short of having him thrown into prison – which I HAVE considered – I'm not sure how to get Jared to stop acting this way. I'm hoping he grows out of it soon. And by "soon" I mean "by the time he's 30." But I'm not holding my breath.

Sometimes I stop by the library just to visit my books

Last year I published a book, but I don't really talk much about it here anymore because I figured it has sold just about all of the copies it's going to sell.

Which, for the record, is something like 230 total sales when you count paperbacks, Kindle versions and the audiobook recording.

Not exactly Danielle Steel territory, but then again, I never did it for sales or money or anything like that. I did it as a bucket list item, and because I found the whole experience to be so cool.

You know the best part? It's the fact that our local library carries four copies of my book.

I want to note that initially there were five copies on the shelves at the Wickliffe Public Library, but now there are only four. Presumably someone borrowed a copy and lost it, which I assume happens all the time.

Whatever the case, having a book I wrote on the shelf at my childhood library is something I never imagined would happen. I just love it.

Sometimes I will look it up in the electronic card catalog to see how many of the four copies are actually in circulation. As I type this, for example, two are sitting on the shelves while two others have been checked out.

I like when they're checked out, of course, but I also like stopping by the library to see the available shelf copies.

Every time I'm there I sneak over to the appropriate stacks (call number "248 TEN") and stare at "my" books for a minute. It never gets old.

Do you think Stephen King ever does that? I'll bet he did when he was first starting out.

Let it be known that on the day two of my books were checked out, both copies of Mr. King's "Pet Sematary" were also in circulation.

Which, as far as I'm concerned, means Steve and I are pretty much on the same level, as far as famous authors go.